Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Oncogene. 2022 Jun 22;41(29):3705–3718. doi: 10.1038/s41388-022-02385-9

Figure 8. DFO and AM23 treatment in combination with fulvestrant does not enrich for CSCs.

Figure 8.

Cell type of interest is bolded in co-culture comparisons. Lines show pair-wise comparisons with ****p<0.0001.

• a-b: Relative mean expression of EMT markers ZEB1 (x-axis) and VIM (y-axis) in MCF7 (a) and HCC1428 (HCC, b) ER+ breast cancer cells in monoculture (circles) or co-culture (squares) with MSCs in response to treatment with 0.1 μM fulvestrant (FULV), 1 μM DFO, 0.2 nM AM23 (MCF7), 0.5 nM AM23 (HCC1428), or combination. Error bars for SEM are smaller than the symbol for some conditions if not evident. Each monoculture versus co-culture pair is significantly different (p<0.0001) in their ZEB1 and VIM expression. N=3.

• c-f: Relative expression of EpCAM (c,d), and ER (e,f) in MCF7 (c,e) and HCC1428 (HCC,d,f) ER+ breast cancer cells treated with AM23 or DFO in combination with fulvestrant in monoculture or co-culture with MSCs as measured by qRT-PCR. ER expression is significantly decreased (p<0.0001) in each monoculture versus co-culture comparison for the same treatment. Otherwise, pair-wise comparisons are only plotted if the comparison is significantly different and consistent in both MCF7 and HCC1428 comparisons. The mean percentage ± SEM is plotted for each condition. N=3.